Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   New York Times, 2005: "The filibuster is a grand Senate tradition that must be protected from Republicans." NYT, yesterday: "Republicans are dusting off arcane old rules to frustrate Democrats" (third item)   (opinionjournal.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

8203 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2007 at 4:14 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



459 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2007-01-12 05:50:49 PM  
theorellior: Um, send it to me care of IXI Jim IXI.

Great. I still haven't finished cleaning up from the Homeland Security raid the LAST time you had your mail sent here...
 
2007-01-12 05:51:15 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: why are YOU so upset today?

well...i haven't exactly called your mother a whore yet, either, man.


you seem to be pointing to some unseen, unheard, as of yet unexistent democrat being OUTRAGED at something or guilty of doing what they decried at an earlier date, but i see no support of this.

perhaps 'has you upset' is the wrong terminology - i just don't see what you are talking about.
 
2007-01-12 05:52:25 PM  
Hang On Voltaire: /too lazy to look for links....trust me

Dude, just save yourself (and us) the time by linking to the talking points Rush and Fox News downloaded into your brain. If you're going to be reflexively partisan, just avoid the blovating and cut to the chase.
 
2007-01-12 05:52:41 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: Great. I still haven't finished cleaning up from the Homeland Security raid the LAST time you had your mail sent here...

Which reminds me... do you still have a copy of my mashed potato recipe?
 
2007-01-12 05:52:52 PM  
MichaelMoron

Brother Alpha said "Did they actually filibuster anything in the past 6 years?"

Thank you for showing how completely uninformed you are.

/ANWR drilling, over 10 judicial nominations, shall I continue?


Did they actually fillabuster, or just threaten it?
 
2007-01-12 05:53:22 PM  
MichaelMoron: Listen up retards,

The Republicans NEVER wanted to do away with the filibuster. They wanted to do away with the filibuster ONLY FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES which they thought was unconstitutional. For legislation, they thought it was perfectly OK.

So, all of you "pot meet kettle" people are comparing apples to oranges.


Hey, retard - Why is the "nuke-you-ler option" OK for judicial nominees and not for anything else?

Please show your work.

Retard.
 
2007-01-12 05:53:30 PM  
A quick note to posters: Using the terms Libtards, Republifarks, etc., automatically invalidates anything useful or insightful you may have had to say. If you have a point to make, just make it. The inane name calling makes you appear as a 12 year old repeating what your daddy told you to say.
 
2007-01-12 05:53:49 PM  
2007-01-12 05:17:29 PM MyNameIsNotMervGriffin [TotalFark]

Uh--believe it or not, some of us on either side of that spectrum are more interested in balancing viewpoints than we are in finding news sources that reinforce our prejudices and preconceptions.


I'm dead center, neither side of the spectrum. I'm just tired of all the partisan bickering back and forth, whos blowing who this week. Its goddamn non-stop and everyone is still amazed when its pointed out!
 
2007-01-12 05:54:38 PM  
Pxtl: I'm sure we can all put aside our differences and agree on at least one thing: the New York Times sucks.

Yeah, in some ways it's really too conservative, but it's still the most important paper in the country and the newspaper of record. As said in Manufacturing Consent, the spectrum of debate in the NYT is really obscenely narrow.

/Gotta love Frank Rich though.
 
2007-01-12 05:54:57 PM  
Skleenar I can point you to where still-serving Dems hated it the last time they were in power.

Give the new Senate a little time. They'll do the same thing they do every time.
 
2007-01-12 05:54:59 PM  
Skleenar
That is as incorrect as your spelling of 'fillibuster'.


:)
 
2007-01-12 05:55:08 PM  
mattw: A quick note to posters: Using the terms Libtards, Republifarks, etc., automatically invalidates anything useful or insightful you may have had to say. If you have a point to make, just make it. The inane name calling makes you appear as a 12 year old repeating what your daddy told you to say.

QFT!
 
2007-01-12 05:55:16 PM  
Hang On Voltaire

This really is par for the course with them. When Ginsburg was up for the SCOTUS the NY Times ran an op-ed stating that Senators would be doing a disservice by asking direct questions on issues likely to come before the court. John Roberts goes before the Senate and suddenly it is important to the NY Times that Roberts be upfront about his beliefs on abortion, affirmative action, etc.

Did you RTFT?
 
2007-01-12 05:55:27 PM  
Manfred Richthofen: Did they actually fillabuster, or just threaten it?

There was one big long filibuster of a judicial nomination. Usually what happened was that Frist would announce that he was going to call for a vote, then they'd count to see if they had enough votes to break a filibuster. If the Democrats said that they had 40 or more votes, he'd just table the bill or end the hearing on a nomination. Then they'd move on to other matters.
 
2007-01-12 05:56:17 PM  
heap
i just don't see what you are talking about.

I have clarified repeatedly. To you in fact. Here we go one more time:

"My POINT has only ever been that I think it amusing that the democrats must now face the threat of filibustering that they so readily used themselves.

Shoe on the other foot, tables turned, good for the goose, good for the gander, etc. etc. etc."


I'm not sure what about this you want to argue about.
 
2007-01-12 05:56:28 PM  
Dems never actually filibustered anything while the Reps were in power last. They just threatened to and the Reps folded like a bunch of biatches.
 
2007-01-12 05:57:03 PM  
nickyhopkins: A lot of Republican hate is being greenlit the past couple days...


A lot of Democratic hate gets greenlit everyday.
 
2007-01-12 05:57:16 PM  
Perhapos it would help if you actually READ my posts.


I read your posts, BojanglesPaladin. And now I've re-read them. And it's always about the Democrats and "isn't it funny...". Maybe a mod deleted the posts where you talked about "equal turnabout"? All I see is "turnabout" talk referencing the Dems.
 
2007-01-12 05:57:26 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: Here we go one more time:

Why do you talk so tiny?
 
2007-01-12 05:57:49 PM  
theorellior: Which reminds me... do you still have a copy of my mashed potato recipe?

Yeah, but oddly enough, they took the one about baking a yellow cake...
 
2007-01-12 05:58:51 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: I'm not sure what about this you want to argue about.

well, had that been your only post, i'd likely smile and nod.

it wasn't, tho.

that is a point i can agree with. the phantom outrage and decrying what they'd done prior part...that part i don't get....as there isn't any support for it.

the majority party filibustering (or threatening to) themselves...i'm not sure i'll ever get.
 
2007-01-12 05:59:28 PM  
I'd like to interrupt this flame war to read from the Declaration of Independence...

www.filmreference.com
 
2007-01-12 05:59:33 PM  
heap: what part of 'half the fark headline is made up' don't you understand?

So stipulated. It still doesn't say anyone's talking about abolishing the filibuster.
 
2007-01-12 06:00:11 PM  
Craptastic

The filibustering of Judicial nominations is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires that the President's nominees be submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent. To perform this role, a vote MUST BE HELD. A filibuster denys them this vote, and goes against the constitution because the Senate is never asked their advice. Also, Legislation can be amended a MILLION different ways and can be changed A MILLION different ways. A President's nominee is either voted FOR or AGAINST. You can not change him/her. Therefore, the filibuster used for legislation is totally different than used for nominees. The Republicans never wanted to do away with the filibuster, they simply contended it was unconstitutional when used on nominees.
 
2007-01-12 06:00:18 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: Yeah, but oddly enough, they took the one about baking a yellow cake...

Dammit! The one I baked last week came out subcritical.
 
2007-01-12 06:02:00 PM  
This was also discussed in The 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America.

Is the NYT fair and balanced? NOPE
 
2007-01-12 06:02:05 PM  
El_Perro: They used the word "arcane." The guy from OpinionJournal, apparently not understanding what the word "arcane" means, decides that it is somehow a negative description

ar·cane
-adjective
known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric: She knew a lot about Sanskrit grammar and other arcane matters.

I don't think the guy's stretching it. The person he quoted is basically saying the GOP is (mis)using an old, outdated ruling to thwart the Dems. Not sure why you think he's seeing negativity when none is there; I'm sure seeing it.
 
2007-01-12 06:03:10 PM  
MichaelMoron: A President's nominee is either voted FOR or AGAINST.

nowhere does it state that.

it states advice and consent. consent.

no timeline is laid out. if consent is not given, it is not given. that does not mean it must be given an up or down vote, it means it is subject to senatorial rules, the filibuster being one of them.
 
2007-01-12 06:03:24 PM  
DrBenway

I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. You are free to do so of course, but it might help if you could point to me either saying something disproportionaly negative about the Democrats or something disproportionaly positive about the Republicans.

Are you saying that the abscence of me talking nicely about the Democrats is the same as talking against them? Or that my lack of condemnation of the Republicans is equal to adoration of them?

Because if so, you have a very simple political worldview.

I have said repeatedly that I think the filibuster is a good tool, regardless of who uses it, so long as the cause is just. As I said before "It was OK when the democrats used it, and it will be OK when the Republicans use it"
 
2007-01-12 06:03:29 PM  
blahpers: Then where is this imaginary "Dems are doing exactly the same thing as Reps did and therefore they're equally bad and by the way I'm cynical!" nonsense coming from?

Eh? I'm simply responding to the guy shrieking about how no one said anything about abolishing the filibuster by pointing out that the headline doesn't either. And it doesn't. What's the problem?
 
2007-01-12 06:04:02 PM  
"Arcane" is somewhat of a loaded term in this context.
 
2007-01-12 06:04:43 PM  
MichaelMoron: The filibustering of Judicial nominations is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires that the President's nominees be submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent. To perform this role, a vote MUST BE HELD. A filibuster denys them this vote, and goes against the constitution because the Senate is never asked their advice.

Or, the Senate is asked for advice and consent and the filibuster is an implicit "down" vote. In the real world, if somebody hangs up when you call them soliciting business, generally we consider that a "no."
 
2007-01-12 06:05:26 PM  
The press is not interested in being fair, objective, balanced, or truthful. Who here doesn't understand that?

Fox, the NYT, they are here TO SELL ADVERTISING. That's it. The only reason they ever come even close to the truth is because if they don't, then they would be pure fiction and have to compete with sitcoms and movies, and they don't want to do that.

The NYT has found they sell more papers (which = more ad $$) if they give their liberal readership audience what they want, true or not. And Fox has found more people tune in if they give their conservative viewing audience what THEY want, true or not. Is this so hard to understand?

I agree that it does suck that the "news" media has to be suck suckwads, but it's been like this for a long, long time. Walter Cronkite and Ed Murrow were rare exceptions - high level newspeople with integrity. I'm sure there are a lot of genuinely committed newspeople out trying to report the news accurately, objectively and fairly, but they seem to be losing out to the scumbags.
 
2007-01-12 06:06:15 PM  
heap: no timeline is laid out. if consent is not given, it is not given. that does not mean it must be given an up or down vote, it means it is subject to senatorial rules, the filibuster being one of them.

Don't say that! You're sounding like one of those activist judges, with an axe to grind against the GOP. Why do you hate Murica?
 
2007-01-12 06:06:22 PM  
MichaelMoron: the Constitution requires that the President's nominees be submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent. To perform this role, a vote MUST BE HELD.

I'm not Robert Byrd, and therefore not a constitutional scholar like you are. Could you show me where in the constitution it differentiates between the passage of bills vs the passage of judicial nominees? I asked you to show your work but you didn't do it.
 
2007-01-12 06:06:27 PM  
heap

Back during the period of threatened filibusters, threatened senate rules changes, threatened 'nuclear option', there was plenty of 'outrage' and 'decrying' by the minority party.

As for 'filibustering themsleves' I don't understand, unless you misread or I transposed parties or something.
 
2007-01-12 06:07:05 PM  
MichaelMoron

The filibustering of Judicial nominations is unconstitutional because the Constitution requires that the President's nominees be submitted to the Senate for their advice and consent. To perform this role, a vote MUST BE HELD. A filibuster denys them this vote, and goes against the constitution because the Senate is never asked their advice.

What?

They are asked. They simply chose to not answer.

"Advise and Consent" language is a requirement on the President, not on the Senate. That's why it's in Article II. Basically, it says the president must receive consent before appoining someone.

It doesn't say the Senate must provide an answer.
 
2007-01-12 06:07:09 PM  
wingnutx: Dems never actually filibustered anything while the Reps were in power last. They just threatened to and the Reps folded like a bunch of biatches.

Kind of reminded me of that episode of Star Trek where two computers fought a war and people willingly got zapped in disintegration booths even though no real battle was being fought.

During all the screaming about the judicial nominees I found myself wishing the GOP would simply demand a REAL filibuster and not accede to the threat. Let both parties actually sit their fat arses down in the Senate and not leave until it's resolved.

/or until Claude Raines tries to commit suicide
 
2007-01-12 06:07:23 PM  
heap

The Senate must give its advice and consent. That means the Senate as a whole. They can vote yes, or they can vote no. They cannot refuse to vote. Besides, how "Democratic" is it to refuse to vote on a person? Are you proud of your party doing that? Refusing to allow a vote and leaving a nominee in limbo for years?
 
2007-01-12 06:07:44 PM  
NO MATTER WHO YOU VOTE FOR, THEY ALL TURN IN TO THE SAME PERSON

Sorry to yell, but my gawd, the Politicians in this country have it made....the best health care, the best retirement plan, and catered meals morning noon and night...They HAVE to stir the pot to justify their usefulness. Sucks being us.
 
2007-01-12 06:07:52 PM  
Priapetic: Walter Cronkite and Ed Murrow were rare exceptions - high level newspeople with integrity.

I'll prempt MichaelMoron's comment:

"That asshat Cronkite lost us the Vietnam War!!one!1!"
 
2007-01-12 06:09:01 PM  
Democrats successfully filibustered the ANWR drilling bill three times, 2001, 2003, and 2005.
 
2007-01-12 06:09:12 PM  
Priapetic: Walter Cronkite and Ed Murrow were rare exceptions - high level newspeople with integrity.

Are you kidding? Cronkite was one of the first major media figures who quit pretending to dispassionately report the news and started commenting on it.

Or am I the only one who remembers how he started biatching about Vietnam being unwinnable on the air?
 
2007-01-12 06:10:45 PM  
MichaelMoron

The Senate must give its advice and consent. That means the Senate as a whole. They can vote yes, or they can vote no.

"Advise and Consent" provision is a requirement on the President, not on the Senate. That's why it's on Article II, not I.

They cannot refuse to vote. Besides, how "Democratic" is it to refuse to vote on a person? Are you proud of your party doing that? Refusing to allow a vote and leaving a nominee in limbo for years?

Nominee gets to work and live like he normally does. What damage does he incur by being in limbo?
 
2007-01-12 06:10:49 PM  
Whoops! Sorry, MichaelMoron, MyNameIsNotMervGriffin beat you to it.
 
2007-01-12 06:11:07 PM  
pssst....It's because Democrats are hypocrites.
 
2007-01-12 06:11:47 PM  
theorellior

But YOU sir, YOU beat them all.
 
2007-01-12 06:12:01 PM  
FlashLV: It's because Democrats are hypocrites.

And republicans are certainly NOT hypocrites, right?
 
2007-01-12 06:12:13 PM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin I hadn't thought of that, but yeah it is a hell of a lot like that :D

I'd like to see either party put their money where their mouth is and do a real filibuster if they think it's that important. Senators would have to stay in their seats and give up martini hour, though, so don't hold your breath.
 
2007-01-12 06:12:35 PM  
FlashLV: pssst....It's because Democrats are hypocrites.

Oh, goodie--FlashLV is here.
 
Displayed 50 of 459 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report